Table 1.
Characteristics of the 10 studies included in the meta-analysis regarding the PD catheter implantation methods.
| Study | Country | Year of publication | Study design | Number of patients | Number of procedures | Age | Sex (male) | Comparison | Follow up peroid | Catheter type | Number of previous abdominal operations | Matching | Newcastle Ottawa quality score | 1-year catheter survival |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rosenthal MA. |
USA | 2008 | Retrospective study | 101 | 107 | 56.1 ± 15.4 | 47 | Open and laparoscopic surgery Versus percutaneous (fluoroscopic guide) |
1 year | Swan neck tenckhoff, Double cuff catheter (Kendoll Healthcare,M assachusetts, USA) | None (patients with previous abdominal operation were excluded) | a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h | 7 | None |
| Park SY. | South Korea | 2014 | Retrospective study | 167 | 167 | – | 100 | Open surgery versus percutaneous | 16 ± 10 months | Swan neck tenckhoff, Double cuff catheter | Surgery group = 17 Percutaneous group = 4 | b,,c,d,e,f,g,i,j | 8 | -Surgery group = 93.3% -Percutaneous group = 89.9% |
| Voss D | New Zealand | 2012 | Randomized controlled study | 113 | 102 6 | 0.8 (51–69.7) | 58 | Laparoscopic surgery versus percutaneous (fluoroscopic guide) | 1 years | Double cuff peritoneal dialysis catheter | None (patients with previous abdominal operation were excluded) | a,b,c,d,e,h,i,j | 7 | -Surgery group = 73.7% -Percutaneous group = 84.0% |
| Atapour A. | Iran | 2011 | Randomized controlled study | 64 | 61 | 55.10 ± 17.20 | 33 | Open surgery versus percutaneous | 2 months | Swan neck tenckhoff, Double cuff catheter | None (patients with previous abdominal operation were excluded) | a,b,d,e,f,g | 6 | None |
| Perakis EK. | Greece | 2009 | Retrospective study | 152 | 170 | 62.8 ± 15.7 | 88 | Open surgery versus percutaneous | 33 ± 29.5 months | -Tenkchoff straight or coiled double cuff catheter - Toronto Western Hospital-II catheter | Surgery group = 14 Percutaneous group = 11 | a,b,i,j | 7 | -Surgery group = 89.5% -Percutaneous group = 91.1% |
| Medani S. | Ireland | 2011 | Retrospective study | 313 | 313 | 50.4 ± 15.3 | 193 | Open surgery versus percutaneous | 12-15 months | Swan neck tenckhoff, Double cuff catheter | Surgery group = 78 Percutaneous group = 14 | a,b,e,f,h,i,j | 7 | -Surgery group = 68.7% -Percutaneous group = 77.7% |
| Roueff S. | France | 2002 | Retrospective study | 104 | 104 | – | – | Open surgery versus percutaneous | – | Single deep cuff tenckhoff catheter | None | b,c,d,e,f,i,j | 6 | -Surgery group = 71.0% -Percutaneous group = 75.0% |
| Ozener C. | Turkey | 2001 | Retrospective study | 191 | 215 | – | 117 | Open surgery versus percutaneous | 21 ± 18 months in surgerygroup, 17 ± 12 months in percutaneous group | Straight or coiled tip double cuff tenckhoff catheter | None | b,e,f,h,i,j | 8 | -Surgery group = 73.0% -Percutaneous group = 90.0% |
| Melotte JG. | UK | 1993 | Retrospective study | 172 | 230 | 66 ± 10.5 | – | Open surgery versus percutaneous | 2583 patients months | Silastic curve- catheter with double cuff | None | a,c,d,e,f,g,i,j | 6 | -Surgery group = 60.0% -Percutaneous group = 33.0% |
| Maher E. | New Zealand | 2014 | Retrospective study | 249 | 286 | 57.4 | 160 | Open surgery versus percutaneous (fluoroscopic guide) | 1 year | Curl peritoneal catheter,Baxter, Deerfield,Illinois | None | a,b,c,d,e,f,h | 8 | None |
Abbreviations: a = age, b = sex, c = peritonitis, d = tunnel and exit site infection, e = leakage, f = inflow and outflow obstruction, g = bleeding, h = hernia, I = early complication, j = 1-year catheter survival.